M/S Impreglam Electronics Ltd. Vs. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1126705
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnFeb-13-2014
AppellantM/S Impreglam Electronics Ltd.
RespondentHaryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cwp-6041-2000 (o&m) date of decision:-13.02.2014 m/s impreglam electronics ltd...petitioner versus haryana state industrial development corporation ltd...respondent coram: hon'ble mr.justice sanjay kishan kaul, chief justice hon'ble mr.justice arun palli present:- mr.atul lakhanpal, senior advocate, with mr.devendra dutta, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.kamal sehgal, advocate, for the respondent. **** sanjay kishan kaul, c.j.(oral) learned counsel for the respondent concedes that there was an ots policy at the relevant stage of time where waivers of interest and penal interest were granted, albeit on a case to case basis. what we fail to appreciate is as to on the one hand a defaulter is given concession of interest and a person re-paying the amount is made to pay more on the basis that the respondent would have earned profits out of the differential rate of interest, as noticed in our last order. the petitioner had challenged the principle on which such re-payment charges were levied, but to put an end to the controversy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is willing to pay a differential of 2% rate of interest, but the respondent is charging more than double that amount. learned counsel for the respondent states that as per his sharma amodh 2014.02.13 17:21 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cwp-6041-2000 (o&m) 2 instructions only 2%-2.5% rate of interest has been charged, but if a discrepancy is found in the same, the same can be rectified. in the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that if the petitioner is willing to pay the differential of 2% rate of interest till the date of closure of the account, that should more than suffice. the calculations be made accordingly and the representative of the petitioner will visit the additional general manager (finance) for reconciliation of accounts. the petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. list for compliance on 27.03.2014. (sanjay kishan kaul) chief justice (arun palli) judge1302.2014 amodh sharma amodh 2014.02.13 17:21 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-6041-2000 (O&M) Date of decision:-13.02.2014 M/s Impreglam Electronics Ltd...Petitioner Versus Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN PALLI Present:- Mr.Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Devendra Dutta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for the respondent.

**** SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, C.J.(ORAL) Learned counsel for the respondent concedes that there was an OTS policy at the relevant stage of time where waivers of interest and penal interest were granted, albeit on a case to case basis.

What we fail to appreciate is as to on the one hand a defaulter is given concession of interest and a person re-paying the amount is made to pay more on the basis that the respondent would have earned profits out of the differential rate of interest, as noticed in our last order.

The petitioner had challenged the principle on which such re-payment charges were levied, but to put an end to the controversy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is willing to pay a differential of 2% rate of interest, but the respondent is charging more than double that amount.

Learned counsel for the respondent states that as per his Sharma Amodh 2014.02.13 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-6041-2000 (O&M) 2 instructions only 2%-2.5% rate of interest has been charged, but if a discrepancy is found in the same, the same can be rectified.

In the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that if the petitioner is willing to pay the differential of 2% rate of interest till the date of closure of the account, that should more than suffice.

The calculations be made accordingly and the representative of the petitioner will visit the Additional General Manager (Finance) for reconciliation of accounts.

The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

List for compliance on 27.03.2014.

(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE1302.2014 Amodh Sharma Amodh 2014.02.13 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh